Sunday, 25 June 2017

LHL has
thrown the gauntlet down in parliament on July 3. He meant it in a video on
Facebook yesterday. He has invited all relevant parties including the opposition to question him on the embarrassing fallout with his
siblings.

He has
also apologised to Singaporeans yesterday.

But before
you run out in a skip and beat, he was apologising for the protracted airing of
the dispute between his siblings, and not apologising for any personal
wrongdoings or misjudgement in the public spat.

In fact,
he said boldly that he will deliver a ministerial statement to refute the
"baseless allegations" when Parliament sits on July 3.

In other
words, there's going to be a rumble in the democratic jungle when politicians
go full throttle in this coming July's huddle.

Mm...I
wonder whether LHY and LWL will be invited to the parliamentary showdown to
either offer their side of the story or question him themselves since they are
deemed the main antagonists in this whole public dispute?

In any
event, if I were ever invited to Parliament on July 3, these will be the
questions I would like to ask my PM Lee.

On
paragraph 7 of LKY’s Last Will:-

1) Is it
valid and properly executed?

2) If so,
what is holding PM Lee back from carrying out his late father's wish after all
conditions are satisfied for its demolition?

3) If not,
because he had "grave concerns" about the preparation of the 7th and
Last Will, why did he not raise it up formally within reasonable time after it
was read out to him three weeks after his father passed away, that is, in April
2015?

4) And if
his reason was because he wanted to "avoid a public fight which would
tarnish the name and reputation of Mr Lee and the family", is he hoping
then to engage in a "private fight" with his siblings by raising the
issue of its validity in a Statutory Declaration ("SD"), which was
subsequently submitted to a ministerial committee, set up sometime last July?

On the
ministerial committee:-

5) Why was
it being convened in the first place?

6) Did PM
Lee play any part in the ministerial committee being convened (or set up), that
is, did he have a hand in starting it, appointing the members in the committee
and setting the agenda/purpose for its appointment and perpetuation?

7) Is the
ministerial committee set up for the purpose of considering the various options
to deal with the 38 Oxley Road house with the aim of gazetting it under the
Preservation of Monument Act, even if it is against the testamentary intent of
LKY, or for the other purpose of investigating whether the Last Will (on the
demolition) was validly and properly executed, or both?

8) If it
was for the purpose of investigating the validity of the Last Will, isn't the
Court of Law a better, more appropriate and competent forum to adjudicate on
such matters?

9) And if
PM Lee had said that he did not want to challenge the Last Will because he
wanted to avoid a public fight that would tarnish the reputation of his father
and his legacy, is he then trying by other means to challenge it by submitting
his SD to the ministerial committee voicing his "grave concerns" and
hoping to keep it out of the public and the judicial eye?

10) Is it
wise, appropriate or proper for the ministerial committee to be made up of his
subordinates (presumably attempting to wear different hats) and "sitting,
arbitrating an issue related to their boss", when the issue in contention
is largely personal, that is, about whether to go against LKY's wish in the
overriding interest of the State or to comply with it, and more relevantly,
about whether the Last Will is valid or not, wherein the dispute is primarily
between their boss and their boss' siblings?

On PM
Lee's parliamentary and public statement:-

11) While
it is not denied that PM Lee told parliament, posted in Facebook and made a
public statement with his siblings that he personally believed his father was
unwavering in desiring that 38 Oxley Road be demolished after his death, and
the same should be duly honoured, why did he then act and protest in such a
manner in his SD (that is, to question the Last Will on demolition) and submit
the same to the ministerial committee, which unavoidably gives the impression
that he hopes the committee would eventually decide to deal with the Oxley
house by all means conceivable except by his father's wish to demolish it?

(Is it
because he is subjecting his personal interest to the State interest? If so,
why even bother to raise such sensitive issues concerning the Will, which he
knows would be seen as firing the first salvo in alleging impropriety on his
younger brother's part and deepen the feud? sorry, that's a bonus, rider
question).

And last
but not least...

12) Will
there be a satisfactory, fair and permanent closure to this
"Oxleymoronic" issue - where State interest is being muddled up with
personal interest - so that Singaporeans can finally get on with their life and
go back to watching American, Korean and Hong Kong soap operas with relish and
great relief?

Lesson?
Just one, and it is enough...trust me.

Let me
quote how PM Lee ended his speech on Facebook.

"As
public servants, my Ministers and I will always protect the integrity of our
institutions, and uphold the strict standards separating private affairs from
our public duties. We are determined to repair the damage that has been done to
Singapore. We will continue to lead our nation and serve you to the best of our
ability.”

I have no
doubt that he meant every word in that conclusion, especially the part about
repairing the damage.

But I
sincerely doubt July 3 will be the end of it.

In fact,
from now to July 3, we can expect a flurry of rebuttals (cloth pegs, extended
clothing line, soiled linens and all) to deepen the wedge since LHY had already
said he would respond later after carefully considering PM Lee's Facebook
video.

Our PM Lee
further added that he hopes that "this full, public sharing in Parliament
will dispel any doubts that have been planted and strengthen confidence in our
institutions and our systems of government."

Well,
again, I personally doubt it about dispelling the doubt part.

For how
can you resolve an issue that has its root in a rivalry that goes beyond
procedural and administrative matters into the alleged source of siblings'
betrayal, hatred and dishonour in an openly guarded, time-restricted and highly
structured administrative setting?

Furthermore,
we can expect Parliament to be conducted with decorum, in mechanically formal
manner, and like the American Presidential debates, but without the opposing
candidate present, I foresee that not everything will be thrashed out, and
therefore only one side would come out of it like a knight in shining
parliamentary armour. At its worst, it may just be interpreted as a whitewashing
session.

Mind you,
this ain't no British or some Taiwan's no-hold-bar parliamentary fisticuffs
right?

In other
words, parliament is a perfect place to debate and discuss about policies,
proposals and plans relating to governmental matters, but it is not (in my
view) equipped (or even prepared for) such matters of the heart where the
issues are highly emotional and deeply dividing, and the contesting
"egos" are collectively half the size of two continents.

Alas, too
much is at stake on either side for anyone to ever wish for a resolution in one
or two parliamentary sitting? Pardon me, I am not that naive.

At best,
we will hear clearer, louder and stronger PM Lee's side of the story and his
side only, and that only widens the chasm between him and his siblings (who are
obviously not invited and may even prefer to fire their turret rounds on social
media instead, where they would at least be assured of a more receptive and
sympathetic audience).

So, in the
end, July 3 will go some ways to clear the air, but it is of limited
effectiveness if the siblings are not invited to a close-door session before a trusted
and respected mediator to thrash out their differences without prejudice or
reservation.

Honestly,
I as a citizen of Singapore do not think it is necessary at this most urgent
time to hear PM Lee apologise to the world (for the public feud) and rehash his
side of the story, which will be rather predictable accompanied by strong
nationalistic and patriotic sentiments to boot.

Instead,
to be truly effective and to advance towards some real hope of resolution, I'd
rather he, as the oldest brother and the first son his late father loved and
trusted with his life, and with the future of Singapore, take the first
initiative to approach his siblings with a heart of understanding, a soul for
brotherly humility and a spirit of amicable settlement, and then talk it out
with them away from the public circus; and if need be, to apologise to them and
ask for their hand of reconciliation and healing to put this whole only-human
ruckus behind them once and for all.

That to me
is the true sign of a leader, and more importantly, the hallmark of a good son
and a trusted older brother who will bear his siblings' load because they ain't
heavy.

...and
after that, after the private caucus with his siblings, no matter how long it
takes, PM Lee then appears in Parliament holding the hands of his siblings and
declares, "It's over."

Not a
single word needs to be added after that, because he would have spoken volume
by that one simple, humbling act in and of Parliament, and the family and
nation will then be on the road together to certain lasting healing.

I get the feeling that
July 3 has already started, and it would definitely be more interesting than
the actual day, where LHL will be defending his side of the story.

The social media and news
have already been busy airing and printing the opinions of both sides, and I
should add that the press is rather fair-handed in balancing the different
views.

It nevertheless makes for sometimes-surprising-and-sometimes-awkward Ping-Pong-like information exchanges for the general public reader, where one side serves with a forehand twist and the other side hits back with a backhand smack, and so on and so forth.Even SMS for Law and Finance Ms Indranee Rajah ("Ms Rajah") has gone on a foray just last night to ask for the identity of the lawyer who drafted LKY's 7th and Last Will. Trust me, the showdown is just warming up before July 3.

Now, PM Lee is keeping mum,
preserving or reserving himself for July 3. I guess he doesn't need to talk much in the
interim since his cabinet luminaries and the Sovereign Wealth Fund head like TCH, Lawrence Wong, wife Ho Ching, Ms Rajah and Tharman are
stepping in to offer their views in support and in vindication of themselves
and/or their PM. Of course, to be fair, some of them had to come forward to defend themselves as LHY had fired the first salvo at them.

However, before July 3, it is undeniable that the government are all
united behind their PM, that's for sure. And for Ms Rajah, she is even going the extra mile to make herself part of the family feud in the name of State's interest and public concern to call for investigation of the Last Will. The camaraderie amongst them is thus not only tight, but also infectious and heartwarming.

Personally, it is arguable as to whether they are doing this because he
is their boss. But more relevantly, I believe PM Lee is locked in an unenviable position
of being both the oldest son of the founding father and the elected leader of
the nation. As such, his allegiance and duties to both naturally overlapped and are sadly conflicted.

I also believe that the
rivalry between the siblings has already been soured from day one when the joint
executors (LHY & LWL) accused their brother/beneficiary of intermeddling, undercutting and
disrespecting their authority as their father's officially appointed trustees
of his estate. Mind you, the duties and responsibilities of a trustee are onerous and serious.

For their perspective, the protocol was
not followed, and was persistently sidelined with apparent impunity, thereby
causing them to air dirty linens in public as the last resort.

Of course, the beneficiary
(PM Lee) has interest too, and the same should be safeguarded, but the younger siblings
must have felt (and are still feeling) that proper channels ought to be
followed, whether you are a private citizen or the Prime Minister of the
country, or both.

Alas, this siblings' spat
is most unfortunate because it has nothing to do with money. They are all
immensely wealthy in their own rights, ways and standing even before their respective inheritance share is added into their own net worth. Neither does it have
anything to do with prestige, fame or reputation; for they are all secondary
concerns, if at all.

However, the perennial dispute has to do with
respecting and carrying out their last father's wish, and it is crystal clear that LKY (and his
wife) wanted the Oxley house to be demolished. You just can't put any
political spin to that last wish to make it go away or to dilute its
testamentary resolve.

Putting aside State's
interest, the Preservation of Monuments Act, the ministerial committee, and
LHL's Statutory Declaration ("SD"), that uncompromising last testamentary wish (and how it has unravelled a family and nation) is sadly the elephant in
the cabinet room, and nobody wants to face the issue head on.

Let me explain what I mean
by borrowing the Indian tale of the blind men (and woman) and the Elephant where they are all trying in
vain to figure out the identity of the animal by feeling only a part of it.

Metaphorically speaking, TCH comes
out and feels the trunk of the elephant and explains that he is the one who set
up the ministerial committee to try "to understand Mr Lee's thinking on
the future of the house".

Yet, we all know it
is crystal clear that to the late Mr. Lee, the house has no future to start with (leaving aside State's and public interests of course).

If LKY would have his way with unerring foresight,
and knowing how the dispute would eventually threaten his legacy, and most importantly, damage his children's relationship, he
would have personally sledgehammered the house down brick by brick - that's
what methinks.

What's more, after having
felt the elephant's trunk, TCH is still evasive about what is the direct
relevance between the suspicion cast on paragraph 7 of the Last Will (as deposed to in LHL's SD) and the committee's deliberation on Oxley's preservation by virtue of legislation and
legislation alone, since such matters (that is, the Will's authenticity), if it is
seriously contemplated as an issue of concern, should properly be left to the
Courts, and not the committee (Furthermore, what does PM Lee hope to achieve by raising it privately to the committee - deepening the siblings' feud by spreading out dirty private linens in a private fight? And now, Ms Rajah is raising it in her Facebook knowing full well that such matters should be best left to those with locus standi to start with for the Courts to properly adjudicate).

Mind you, to compound
misperception further, the committee will be seen by many to be reporting, directly or indirectly, to their "recused" boss, and not so much to the rightful joint executors, who have been
clamouring without much success for some accountability from them.

So, as far as the joint
executors are concerned, they felt stone-walled and sidelined by the committee
whenever they asked for its member composition, its agenda and update.
According to them, it took the committee nearly one year to come out in the
open on some of the information they have been requesting for.

One would have therefore
expected TCH, after feeling the elephant's trunk, to give an account of that (or to explain why the delay or alleged filibustering),
instead of still trying (by executive mandate instead of judicial due process) to figure paragraph 7 out after more than 2 years of
LKY's passing.

I guess to him, the elephant's trunk
he touched felt like a snake?

Then comes our law
minister. It is his turn to feel the elephant, and he is directed to feel its
tail.

Now, according to LWL, he
was a very good friend of the family and he was actively involved in advising the late LKY on
the demolition clause (and how it was to be carried out), and all the siblings.

As such, it is
understandable why they (LHY and LWL) cried foul (or conflict) when they
discovered that he was in the committee to adjudicate on its preservation, and
possibly, the authenticity of paragraph 7.

But having felt the tail,
our law minister essentially only has one word to his siblings and former friends,
"ridiculous". Nothing much was said to
assure the siblings. As such,
I think the siblings must have felt that it was a betrayal.

I guess to the law
minister, the elephant's tail he touched felt like a rope?

Then, in comes Ho Ching who feels the knee of the elephant but fails to identify the animal correctly too.

She did not directly
reply to LHY's question addressed to her: "It is deeply troubling that
someone can represent the PMO despite holding no official position."

All Ho Ching said is that
she was doing some housecleaning at that time (when parties were away) when she discovered some "small
interesting items" belonging to her father-in-law. She then passed them to
NHB without seeking approval from the joint executors.I guess to Ho Ching, the elephant's knee she touched felt like a tree?

As for Lawrence Wong, he feels the elephant's body and calls it a rough wall. The
siblings has accused him of brushing aside their concerns about the composition of
the committee, and then changing his mind that ran counter to the terms of the Deed of Gift
settlement agreement with NHB - the apparent stringency of its terms notwithstanding.

Finally, Ms Rajah is last on the list. She feels the elephant's ear and struggles to identify the animal. Instead, she calls for further enquiries into the circumstances surrounding the Last Will. Mind you, her call is not illegitimate, but the protocol and procedure are questionable. As the SMS for Law and Finance and a senior counsel herself, she should have known the proper forum for challenging Wills. Further, she then defended TCH's rationale for considering PM Lee's SD questioning the validity of paragraph 7 on demolition. By doing so, she has conveniently avoided the questions raised by LHL and LWL, that is, the "secrecy" of the committee, its agenda in the light of PM's SD, the stonewalling, and the possible conflict which made the siblings uncomfortable. More importantly, is the executive committee set up as a judicial panel to decide on the validity of the Will instead of a proper Court of Law?I guess to Ms Rajah, the elephant's ear she touched felt like a broad fan?

Lesson? Just one.

Well, I always
believe in calling a spade a spade. The issue here is not about identifying the
elephant correctly (since the men in the parable are blind). Metaphor aside, the issue here is about refusing to see what is
right before their eyes (for highly intelligent and respected individuals with normal sight).

Worryingly, for some of them, they do not see that their participation in the debate or feud before July 3 runs the risks of being perceived by the public as a biased attempt to shoring up support for one side against another. This only unnecessarily deepens the siblings' wedge further. At times, silence is golden for those who are not directly caught in the cross-hair of the flying accusations and allegations.

The issue is also about
the inescapable mismatch (or shortfall) between the ideals of public office and the
fallibility of the human agents occupying it. The reality is, we can't always
live up to the ideals even in the best of efforts and intentions. The mismatch/shortfall is natural, expected and understandable.

Sadly, as public office holders,
we always want to project the image of incorruptibility, unimpeachability and
beyond reproach. Whiter than white remember? (More like white-washing instead).

The people or voters
unrealistically and unfailingly expect it, and the politicians are therefore
expected to deliver it by all means conceivable whether virtuous or less so. But it is exactly this desperate attempts to close the unavoidable only-human mismatch/shortfall and project that invulnerability image at all costs that destroy both the office-holder and the trust the people reposed on him.

As such, the desperate bridging of this mismatch/shortfall can wreck
havoc in the mind of the public office holder, and deepen the cognitive
dissonance or perpetuate the self-delusion or confirmation bias.

We are only humans after
all, and we stumble and fall occasionally. Politicians, pastors and common
folks, we are all fallible. We bleed when we fall down, and at times, we crash
and breakdown too.

In the premises, to say, insist or paint an impression that one side of this siblings fallout is unimpeachable, fully exonerated, and
blameless, and the other side is deeply flawed, wholly mistaken, and fully
blameworthy, is to perpetuate this insidious mismatch or delusion, and fall
into its trap.

Nothing can be resolved if
each fraction keeps insisting they are right and blame the other fraction for
everything. It is also highly impossible to maintain that uncompromising
position given that the mutual incrimination between the siblings seems to
point to shortcomings, misunderstanding, personal faults and errors of judgment
on BOTH SIDES.

And now, to rope in
reinforcements from and for one side by presenting one side of the story to the
exclusion of the other (or at least to be perceived that way) is never a wise
step towards bringing closure to the largely private dispute. It only escalates the feud and divide the family further.

Alas, to me, the issue has never
been in the first place about preserving the Oxley house by virtue of legislation,
or in the interest of the State.

The issue however is first
and foremost always about, on the one side, complying with father's wish,
carrying it out, and respecting the roles of the joint executors, and on the
other side, seeking understanding to preserve the Oxley house, discussing and
reconciling father's wish with the possible preservation of Oxley house in a private,
frank and amicable manner, and giving each side the time and space to consider and
resolve the issue, and most importantly,
doing all that while bearing the founding fathers' overriding goal in mind,
that is, always be protecting and preserving family relationship and the nation's
peace, stability and harmony.

In other words, all parties are to never
lose sight of the big picture. And on this, I take my cue from Ho Ching, whom I
guess felt the elephant, and for a brief moment of clarity caught her true
image, when she said this to the younger siblings:-

"I hope that whatever you are upset about, you will have the heart to
remember what papa and mama would have wanted most for the family and for
Singapore."

Well, methinks that big-hearted
mindset applies to the other side of the divide too. It thus takes an open mind, a forgiving heart and deep understanding to call an elephant an elephant, deal with the issue at hand, and hopefully, move forward from there. And it always, without fail, proceeds with an apology from both sides to kick-start the road to personal and national recovery. Because ultimately, we do not want to end up "demolishing the familyjust so that the house could be preserved for posterity." Cheerz.